On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Dermot McNally <derm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/4/29 Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>: > >> But isn't this angle one where the open/closed distinction gains weight >> again? Currently, you can (and I've done this a number of times) tell >> potential OSM users: "Everything on openstreetmap.org is free software and >> free data - you can build the exact same site for yourself with all its >> functionality from our database and our svn" *). With non-free routing or >> geocoding services that would stop. > > Actually yes, I think I overstated my lack of caring where the routing > comes from - let me restate my priorities thus: > > 1. That we should have at least one routing engine to show that our > data will support that. > > 2. That we should have a selection of routing tools to demonstrate > that the data are engine-agnostic. > > 3. That a good proportion of the engines we show off be sufficiently > open to allow users to play with them or deploy them for their own > needs. > > 4. That our "headline" routing engine be open. > > That is, whereas I have a preference for an open solution, so that > people get used to the idea that such problems can be solved using > open software, I personally wouldn't insist on it if (as I believe) we > are selling ourselves short without any on-site visibility of routing > tools.
I totally agree. +1 From me. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev